The SPECIAL PLEADING rebuttal -- What about all those other "messiahs" who did the same miracles Jesus did?
The example of Sai Baba -- and L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, other modern comparisons
The example of Apollonius of Tyana -- and Buddha, Hercules, other ancient comparisons
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
Your entire response boils down to nothing more than special pleading.
He must be right, because my rebuttal to this is longer than his one-liner. And the longer statement is always wrong, which is the best argument that I'm wrong and he's right.
Is it SPECIAL PLEADING to argue for the miracles of Jesus based on the 1st-century evidence?
"Special Pleading" -- blogger debunks Christ-belief "argument from miracles":
http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2019/03/comparing_jesus_to_another_pur.html
With Koyaanisqatsi giving us no example of another miracle-worker to compare Jesus to, we have to go in search of someone else making this "special pleading" retort, to determine if there is a "special pleading" fallacy going on. But it's not enough to just name someone in the abstract, or give a laundry list of names (of supposed miracle-workers). One must provide the particular example of the "miracle" performed by the alleged miracle-worker:
Comparing Jesus to Another Purported Holy Man
In discussing religion with Christians, there seems to be this blind spot about the vast array of different religious beliefs out there. Many seem to see religion as a dichotomy - either Christianity is true, or religion in general is false. In many of their arguments, they just don't seem to even consider other religions (Pascal's wager is an obvious example of this blind spot). It results in many of their arguments being special pleading, but since they seem to be so unaware/dismissive of other religions, I'm not sure they even realize it's special pleading. But the end result is still that the arguments aren't particularly persuasive.
So, for some context, let's consider a different purported holy man besides Jesus. This man began a ministry and attracted many followers. According to his followers, he was prophesied in scriptures, and was God in the flesh. They claim he performed many miracles, including healings, levitation (somewhat similar to Christ's walking on water), making objects appear, changing water into other drinks (very similar to turning water into wine), . . . There are many claimed eye-witnesses to his miracles and these visions, and a written account of his life, including many of the miracles he performed.
"he was prophesied in scriptures"
(Let's get this out of the way first.)
There's a problem with this messianic claim for Jesus as being divine or superhuman. Here there might really be a "special pleading" fallacy committed, but not in the argument from miracles. The most famous Jesus prophecy fulfillment seems to be the Bethlehem birth, found only in Matthew and Luke, fulfilling Micah 5:1. This is very difficult to maintain without requiring the truth-seeker to accept the doubtful Matthew and Luke birth stories as divinely inspired, and infallible. Which is not necessary in order to establish that he performed miracle healings or that he resurrected -- for that it's only necessary to recognize the Gospel accounts as normal human writings, reporting observable facts in history, with normal elements of error mixed in with the historical fact. Also, the author of John believed that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem (Jn 7:41-43), so the prophecy-fulfillment argument is weak.
There might be similar problems connecting Jesus to the other Jewish prophecies. In most cases it seems necessary to accept the infallibility of scripture as a prerequisite to these prophecy-fulfillment claims.
But no infallibility of scripture is needed to establish the Jesus miracle acts as credible, and thus there's
no "special pleading" fallacy in believing Jesus did miracles, showing his unique life-giving power and superhuman status. So even if there might be some logical fallacies, or flaws, or factual errors in some of the christology traditions/doctrines, this isn't so for the basic fact of the miracle acts, for which we have real evidence not dependent on any religious belief or premise other than basic science and normal historical documentation.
Of course within all the thousands (millions?) of Christ-belief factions, mysticizings, spiritualizings, theologizings, evangelizings, and offshoot sects and crusades, there's bound to be a few errors and contradictions and fallacies committed (like maybe a billion or so).
But for the miracle claims, it's "Just the facts, ma'am," so to make the "special pleading" case, our debunker must show us another example of a reputed miracle-worker for whom we have legitimate evidence, such as we have for Jesus in the Gospels. We're told here that Sai Baba is such a case, and some others are also named, but the evidence is not provided.
It's not enough to just give us a name (or many names) of someone said to be comparable to Jesus in the Gospels. We have to know what claim is being made, specifically, of their miracle deeds, and see the original source making the claim. The "special pleading" accuser always stops before that point, without giving us the examples of the miracle-worker's great deeds. Probably because he knows they are ludicrous and are not really comparable to Jesus in the Gospels.
Now, lest you think I'm referring to some ancient figure whose reputation grew legendary over generations, this man was born in 1926, and he . . .
But his reputation grew legendary over a period of 50 years or longer, through a long public career of preaching and displaying his charisma directly to thousands of disciples, and indirectly through modern technology to millions -- a modern advantage which he shares with several other popular gurus and celebrities, even demagogues, all of whom had talent and knew how to take advantage of the modern media. It is easy to explain how miracles were attributed to him by his intoxicated devotees, over his long career, even if the reports were fictional.
Such a popular celebrity cannot be compared to Jesus in the 1st century whose public life was only 1-3 years and had no modern media to establish a wide reputation.
. . . born in 1926, and he only died in 2011. His biography was written while he was still alive, and many of the eye witness testimonies are available on the Internet (such as
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-felt-the-power-of-Sai-Baba-personally ).
There is no serious "miracle" claim at this link. There are many subjective feel-good experiences reported by the devotees, but nothing comparable to an ability to instantly heal the blind or the lame or lepers. Why can't the "special pleading" debunker cite one example of a real "miracle" claim here?
His name was Sathya Sai Baba, and he still has devoted followers.
Notice (above and below) that he doesn't cite any text or report or original source for any miracle act, meaning something which normal humans cannot do. Whenever these alternative miracle-workers are cited, we're never provided with the original reports. Instead we always have to rely on the debunker's paraphrase of what the Jesus parallel -- the "holy man" -- supposedly did. Why can't they ever give us the original source for the claim? i.e., a reported real miracle act seen by witnesses? for just one such claim?
It's not true that there are other examples of reported miracle-workers if you're not willing to give us the example, naming the particular miracle deeds they did, including the original source making that miracle claim.
Not L. Ron Hubbard, not Joseph Smith, not -- you name the guru --
if you refuse over and over to give us the original source, the text, the publication, QUOTE IT -- quote the text relating what the guru did, which witnesses saw and believed --
if you keep refusing to do this, then you cannot claim there is any SPECIAL PLEADING fallacy being committed. Until you give us that information, quoting the source for it, you have not shown that there are any other reported miracle-workers who are comparable to Jesus in the Gospels.
When will you finally cut the B.S. and give us that information about your alleged miracle-worker example/comparison?
Let's divide the examples into 2 categories, the modern and the ancient cases.
1) Modern cases (after 1500 AD): Sai Baba, also
L. Ron Hubbard,
Joseph Smith, TV evangelists, etc.
2) Ancient cases other than Jesus in 30 AD (before 1500 AD): Apollonius of Tyana, also
Gautama Buddha, and many others.
1)
modern cases
It's not good enough to just mention "miracles" but never give any example or tell us what is claimed to have happened or give the original source for it. A link, such as the above for Sai Baba, giving hundreds of feel-good testimonials, like promotionals for a multi-level marketing rally, does not give us examples of miracle acts comparable to that of Jesus raising the dead or giving sight to the blind.
The modern Sai Baba example:
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-felt-the-power-of-Sai-Baba-personally lists many "miracles" experienced by his devotees. 99% of his "miracles" are these personal vibes miracles, where disciples felt something from his presence, or also had something nice happen to them which they're sure he must have caused, although he was not present. In many cases they prayed to him for something, and then something happened which was an answer to their prayer, they thought. But it's all just their feeling that he must have done something, not an observable act which he performed.
Don't claim this character also did miracles, according to witnesses, without looking at the particular examples or listening to the disciples making these claims. You can't seriously claim these are similar to Jesus in the Gospels if you actually read them or listen to them. Read the claim first, or listen to it. These recorded testimonies are about subjective personal feelings only, not an actual unusual act being performed by the miracle-worker and witnessed by various observers.
This personal feelings phenomenon is obviously the main driving force behind the Sai Baba miracle claims, being a product of his charismatic effect on the disciples. But there might also be a few testimonials somewhere of claimed healing experiences, where they claim he did something, and then they recovered from an illness (perhaps instantly? like the ones healed by Jesus?). Maybe a "miracle" happened in this or that case? i.e., an observable act he did which cannot be done by normal humans?
If so, these are a tiny fraction of the total reported "miracles" of Sai Baba and are hard to find because they're drowned out and submerged under the vast flood of personal feelings "miracles" which totally dominate all the stories of him. Can someone provide a serious miracle claim? We have to keep an open mind about the possibility, but whoever claims those "miracle" acts happened and were witnessed has to give us the particular example, or the published report telling what happened.
Obviously there are millions of psychic-type claims which cannot be refuted (and maybe billions of others which can be refuted). But it's easy to explain miracle claims about a guru who has a longstanding reputation, developed over decades of preaching to his disciples and impressing them with his charisma. That alone can easily explain the claims (serious claims) even if the "miracle" never really happened but is only an illusion or fiction. But it cannot explain the case of Jesus in 30 AD.
What if someone other than Jesus also did a miracle?
If a miracle really did happen, a real act of power, like an unexplained medical miracle-recovery, that's fine -- there's nothing wrong with it -- it doesn't disprove the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels. Out of the millions of miracle healing claims in many cultures, over many centuries, maybe a small number are real -- maybe 1%, or .1%. There's probably no way a researcher could investigate all the claims, or a thousand of them, and confirm them -- proving some and disproving all the others -- by checking all the claimed facts, checking with all the possible witnesses, etc. But if they have evidence as strong as what we have in the Gospels, reporting the events, maybe the claim is true in that case. So let's have the particular case of a real miracle event, a superhuman act someone witnessed, and proceed from there. Why is no one offering any such example?
In general such claims can easily be explained as having been produced by the impact of the guru and his charisma, influencing his disciples over a long period of 20 or 30 or 40 years, and being publicized and promoted in the media -- even if the claimed miracle event per se is really fiction.
There are millions of personal-feelings "miracles" reported in testimonials to gurus like Sai Baba, and these are not about any observed "miracle" act but just that the guru made them feel good or gave them good vibes. Why do the disciples want to obscure the legitimate miracles, if they exist, with all these personal private feelings "miracles" which have nothing to do with anything observable or objective which a neutral observer could witness if it really happened?
What "miracle" do they say happened? Let's have the particular example.
Not just a general claim that so-and-so did "miracles" -- but the original source telling what happened in at least one particular case. This information about
one case only is better than a sweeping claim about 100 or 1000 miracles that happened but no details of what happened.
So, anyone claiming there are "miracles" comparable to those of Jesus -- whether it's devotees claiming it, or a skeptic debunking all such claims -- must provide the particular examples, in which case they could still be right. But they must do better than just give their usual Jesus-debunk rhetoric. They must provide real examples of what happened, i.e., the original reports from the witnesses or those claiming the "miracles" happened. What we need is 2 or 3 specific examples of the miracle claims, telling us what the claim is, from those closest to the actual event, what exactly they claim to have seen or heard, from the original source. So far we are not getting any such examples.
And modern Christians also make similar claims of personal experiences. Or, just religious believers generally. Obviously there are
modern claims made about Jesus doing "miracles" today, according to this or that believer, usually connected to their praying and their local church community, where they pray for each other, even do a healing ritual, and sometimes seem to get an "answer" which couldn't be a coincidence, they think. The same happened at the Asclepius temples in 400-300 BC, where worshipers practiced the prescribed rituals, and sometimes they got a good result which they thought the ancient god must have caused. In some cases they report a bizarre miracle happening.
So, if the evidence is provided, and the claim cannot be explained as mythologizing by the disciples who were influenced by the guru's charisma over 10 or 20 or 30 years of preaching, then maybe the claim is true. We need to see the particular example, the report of what happened. But those making these claims don't give us that information. Debunkers first have to make the case that these reported "miracles" really happened -- are reported to have happened -- before they claim there's a "special pleading" fallacy.
The possibility of a comparable miracle-worker cannot be ruled out, if those claiming it produce the original source for the claimed "miracle" event. The Sai Baba believers could provide this evidence if they choose. And yet they don't seem interested in doing this. They just like saying that the miracles do happen, and even that the evidence is better than for Jesus in the Gospels, but they stop there without going further to give any example.
Or, Gospel-debunkers insisting that evidence exists for other cases could produce the evidence, if it exists, give the example, cite the claim by witnesses, telling what they saw. But they never produce this evidence, quoting the source for it.
Ancient miracle tradition as the source for modern miracle claims
Generally what we see in all these cases, including also modern Christ-believers, are worshipers who went to their priest/evangelist/prophet/guru as devout believers, convinced that their prayer would be answered, persuaded by the popular religious tradition established over many centuries, transmitted down through hundreds of generations by their ancestors, promoted by their hierarchy or priesthood ordained through the ancient rituals or institutions. None of these reported miracle claims are about a recent "messiah" unconnected to the ancient religious institutions and rituals. They're always about a credentialed ordained prophet or priest
acting according to the prescribed ancient established religious procedures.
Thus being rooted in the ancient religious traditions, it's clear what causes the belief in the modern miracle claims of gurus and televangelists and others performing before their audience of believers -- claims of being healed or getting some other answer to their prayers, even though it could all be fiction, as the belief is a result of normal mythologizing.
This is not what happened in the case of Jesus in 30 AD, who does not fit this standard pattern: the victims he healed were not his disciples who already believed in his power or in an ancient ritual he was performing on them. Though in some cases the victims had heard of him and hoped he would heal them, it was not through an ancient religious tradition that they acquired their belief, but through local rumors that he had exercised this power and had healed someone, perhaps even a large number at a gathering. They were not inspired by his charisma over some period of hearing him preach, but from rumors circulating about him, and they hoped these rumors were true.
Sai Baba: Historical religious teacher is turned into a miracle-worker.
Jesus Christ: Historical miracle-worker is turned into a religious teacher.
He had no longstanding reputation, such as Sai Baba did, but was only a recent figure, appearing a few days or weeks or months earlier, in the local region, with no established recognition, unconnected to any particular religious cult we can recognize in the accounts, except that various conflicting ideological and religious and philosophical ideas became attached to him in the later written accounts, ideas which he may or may not have spoken.
There's no clear connection of him to any specific religious tradition distinct from any others, especially nothing to do with miracles or healing gods, like all the other miracle healing claims are tied to a specific established religious miracle healing tradition. Had he been attached to some such ancient Jewish god or hero or teacher, it would have been Yahweh or Moses or Elijah or Solomon, which he would have named as his power source.
You can't claim he had any exclusive connection to the ancient Jewish god anymore than to an ancient Egyptian or Greek god or to the Gnostic gods (except that he was in a Jewish location, putting him closer to Jewish ideas than to these others). Ancient Jewish prophets are sometimes mentioned or quoted, but nothing showing any dependence on them for his miracle power. Some Greek and Egyptian and Gnostic symbols can also be found in the Gospel accounts.
This absence of any exclusive dependency on a particular ancient religious tradition makes it impossible to explain how people believed in his power if the described miracle acts never happened but are fiction. The common fiction claims in religion and mysticism can be explained as tied to a particular ancient miracle god, such as Krishna in the case of Sai Baba, who performed his acts in the name of those ancient Hindu deities. Here is a web page in which a Sai Baba seeker says he has to be convinced that Baba is not only
LIKE Krishna, but actually
IS Krishna.
http://media.radiosai.org/journals/vol_14/01AUG16/I-am-not-like-Krishna-I-am-Krishna.htm -- He has to go through a questioning phase before he finally becomes a whole-hearted believer, when he becomes convinced that BABA IS KRISHNA HIMSELF -- the very same entity.
This is typical of the various prophets and gurus and "messiah" figures who are believed to do miracles. They must first establish their connection to the ancient miracle deity in whose name they act. Without this the worshipers would not accept them as genuine and believe the miracle claims. But the case of Jesus is different: there is nothing in the miracle stories requiring any such identification with a particular ancient miracle god.
Various symbols got attached to Jesus.
The label "messiah" and other Jewish symbols became attached to Jesus in order to explain who he was -- to satisfy the local population which was mostly Jewish. But his power was recognized first, and then explanations were sought from the ancient scriptures to try to explain his place in the context of the ancient beliefs.
The ancient beliefs don't really explain the reported miracle acts, which are not made a prerequisite in the earlier traditions/scriptures. Though
Jesus the Teacher can be connected to earlier Judaism,
Jesus the miracle-worker actually had little resemblance to the "messiah" figure described in the ancient Hebrew prophecies. Early 1st-century Jews creating a "messiah" figure would not have produced something like the miracle-worker Jesus of the Gospels -- Jews from this period had no interest in miracle claims -- nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nothing in Philo the Alexandrian, nothing in any Jewish writings going back 200 or 300 or 400 years. And especially they would create no "Messiah" who ends up getting crucified, which was not supposed to happen to the Messiah.
The symbols attached to Jesus come from everywhere, not just from Jewish scripture. They come from Greek philosophy and from Egyptian mysticism and from apocalyptic literature, like Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The belief in his power came first, and then there occurred a need to find something ancient to attach him to, in order to give him an identity people would accept, rather than seeing him as an alien entity of some kind. And so those symbols became attached to him --
after he became identified as a miracle-worker, which happened first. This explains why other ideas than only Jewish ideas got attached to him. If he was only a Jewish hero, there's no way to explain why Greek-Roman-Egyptian-pagan symbols also got attached to him.
And I chose Sai Baba rather arbitrarily, because I've just happened to learn of him recently. There are many other purported holy men I could use for comparison, such as Ram Bahadur Bamjan, believed by some . . .
This is an outrageous example to offer --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon -- showing the depraved mindset of those who are desperate to find Jesus parallels from among the eastern mystics. The Sai Baba example has some respectability, or wide recognition, but this Bahadar example is a disgrace to include here. Why does a debunker-crusader have to sink to this level?
. . . believed by some to be the reincarnation of the Buddha; Sun Myung Moon, who claimed to be a messiah continuing Jesus's work and who wrote new scriptures (i.e. Exposition of the Divine Principle); Joseph Smith, a prophet who claimed to have visions of Jesus and visits from angels and who wrote his revelations into new scriptures (i.e. the Book of Mormon);
There are virtually no serious miracle acts reported about these figures in the literature. Whatever you can dig up will be more ludicrous than serious, but if you claim there's something serious, let's see the original source for it, quoting the original text here, rather than just giving a link. Why does no one ever do this, offering real examples?
Don't retort that there was such a source offered 3 years ago in a previous post -- those were debunked at the time -- give it again here, quoting the exact text relating the miracle event in question. (The Joseph Smith links provided earlier, 2 or 3 years ago, were of lengthy text walls which did not include the specific text for the particular miracle claim, or which obscured it within walls of text 10 times longer than anything I've posted. --
And cut out the silly nonsense about someone seeing a golden tablet! A golden tablet with goofy marks on it is NOT A MIRACLE! Stop it! Get serious! If you can't come up with something better than this, you're admitting that the Jesus miracles are the only ones for which we have serious evidence. -- So to be serious you must copy/quote the particular text relating the claimed miracle act, and only then can you claim to have cited something comparable to the Jesus miracle acts, for which particular original text is provided, reporting what happened in particular cases.)
Note that all the above examples are of gurus who first had to identify with an ancient miracle deity of some kind, in whose name they performed their acts. No one believed any of the miracle claims about them without first having this religious identity established, to connect him to the ancient traditions.
Stop the pretense, give real examples of miracle claims, citing the source!
As usual there are no examples offered of any of the miracles performed by these alleged miracle-workers. When no examples are given, but just a name, or list of names, it's really just a way to say: "See, there are other Jesus-like 'messiahs' also --
Jesus isn't unique!"
Thus the only purpose of giving these parallel "messiahs" is not to show that there is any evidence for them, which there is not, but ------ Oh, there IS evidence? -- but then why is none ever offered? Why do the debunkers only give the list of names but never give a particular example of the evidence, quoting the text reporting what miracle was performed by the prophet or teacher or "messiah" they're offering for comparison? ------ No,
the only purpose is to express their hate toward the one case in 30 AD for which there really is evidence.
The truth here is that our "special pleading" debunker hates the fact that there is serious evidence for the Jesus miracles and virtually no evidence for any others -- he can't stand it that there is evidence in this one case only. If there really was evidence for the other ones he names, he would give the evidence for at least one of them, quoting the original source -- i.e., citing the source AND quoting the critical text relating the miracle act.
The "special pleading" outburst is just the debunker's
frustration and whining at being unable to find other cases for which there is evidence similar to what we have for Jesus in the Gospels --
and it drives him NUTS!
He
wishes there were other examples, but he can't find them because there aren't any. If there were any others he would give them, providing the source, quoting the text which reports the miracle claims. But if he does that he will only embarrass himself, because they are so silly. If there are other serious cases, let's see the example, from the original source, instead of the usual meaningless laundry list of names.
Which is all the Sai Baba example is -- Just one more name on a meaningless laundry list. You can see from the video page
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-felt-the-power-of-Sai-Baba-personally what virtually all the Sai Baba "miracles" are --- just emotional outbursts from devotees expressing their subjective feelings. And admittedly there are many Christ-belief "miracle" claims too, of this same kind. All of them are based on a devotion to an ancient miracle tradition, to which the modern believer wants to add their personal feelings.
But the miracle claims about Jesus occurred without any connection to an ancient established miracle tradition, inspired only by actual events which happened at around 30 AD, with nothing earlier to explain them.
Ancient religious tradition, not evidence, is usually the source for miracle claims.
Devotion and subjective feelings toward the ancient traditions are not evidence either for modern miracles or for the ancient claims. We have real evidence for one ancient claim, Jesus in about 30 AD, reported in writings from the time. Though we can't rule out other possible cases of an unexplained happening, 99% of miracle claims are lacking serious evidence because it's too easy to explain them, or the evidence for them, as inspired more by the ancient tradition rather than actual miracle events happening. Possibly a psychic phenomenon investigator could gather evidence, question witnesses, etc., and actually make a good case that this or that reported miracle really happened or did not happen.
So for a serious case, similar to Jesus in the Gospels, we need a reported miracle-worker who appears from nowhere, not part of an ancient religious tradition, and not requiring many years of preaching in order first to inspire his devotees who then start claiming he did a miracle. A miracle-worker claim is far more credible in a case of someone doing his miracles without reliance on an ancient religious deity in whose name he performs his miracle, and without reliance on his charisma inspiring his disciples over many years. When those factors are so obvious, as they usually are, that explains the belief of the devotees, even though there was no real miracle act.
But if there are witnesses or reports saying it, and there's no other way to explain it as fitting the normal pattern, then -- who knows? maybe the only explanation is that the reported miracle really did happen.
Yes, there could be other credible cases of miracles.
But let's see the evidence, instead of the constant whining that Jesus can't be the only one.
And it's appropriate again to name here the one example from 100 years ago, of
Rasputin the mad monk, for whom there is evidence that he healed a child from a blood disease -- or rather, brought relief to that child, who otherwise seemed to be dying, and who could not be helped by mainline medical doctors. There is evidence in this one case, from the historical record, which cannot be denied. It's documented that this case is real, based on standard historical records, but there is no consensus on what Rasputin did, or how he caused the child to recover -- and no consensus that it was "divine" or a "miracle" etc. There could be a medical explanation, but no one knows what it is, and there was no recognized medical science used in this case. This is an example of a legitimate case, of an apparent "miracle" act done in the case of one victim with a physical affliction. So the historical record here does not confirm that a "miracle" really happened, but rather, that something happened which cannot be explained and which cannot be ruled out as being a "miracle" of some kind.
There's nothing about the Jesus miracles in the Gospels which says there can be no other miracles or miracle-workers except this one case only. If there's good evidence for any others, then it's reasonable to believe them too. There could be some explanation from the realm of psychic phenomena in some cases, which might even explain the Jesus miracles -- it can't be ruled out. But it doesn't matter how it's explained. What matters is whether it really happened, and whether that same power could also produce eternal life, as claimed in Paul's epistles and John's Gospel. Though those two sources differ very much, they both agree that Christ's power included an offer of eternal life to believers. This is a reasonable hope if he actually did have that power, i.e., demonstrating it in the miracle acts. And this hope is not diminished by the possibility that similar acts elsewhere may have actually happened. But we know that in most cases such claims are fiction, based on false hope rather than evidence, because there are so many charlatans with charisma and power to deceive the gullible.
Debunkers who give us the laundry list of parallel miracle-workers -- Joseph Smith and Sai Baba and others -- never offer any examples of the miracles reportedly done by these other "messiah" figures. When the debunker is embarrassed to offer even one example of such a miracle claim, it's a clear indication that the particular miracle claims are probably ludicrous, and would be laughed at rather than taken seriously.
You can't get around this without finally breaking down and digging out the examples, doing the research, finding the alleged miracle event reported in the sources, about Sai Baba or Joseph Smith or Sun Myung Moon, and the others. As long as the debunker only says:
Here's our laundry list of messiahs -- they also claim to have done miracles without giving any example and quoting the original source, then they are only expressing their exasperation at the evidence for the Jesus miracles and lack of evidence for the others. They are offended that there's evidence in this one case but a lack of evidence for the others. So when they insist that there must be others also, they are just throwing a tantrum, demanding EQUALITY of all miracle claims, because
it's just NOT FAIR that there's only this one case of a miracle-worker and not any others.
No? -- Well then cut out the phoniness and give the other examples. The real "special pleading" is to keep claiming there are other examples and yet not to offer one, giving the source for it, so we can see for ourselves what "miracle" someone claimed happened.
That Jesus in the gospels is a singular case -- the only one for whom there is evidence -- is the only explanation as long as they continue to not offer the other examples, presenting the miracle claim, from the original source saying what miracle act was done by this or that Swami or Rama What's-his-name, Baba-Bagwan Bami-Shazami-Wowie-Ramjami. We know there's a long list of fancy Wiz-bang names -- Enough with the phony lists! let's have the particular reported miracle event itself, from the original source, telling us what they claim happened.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
